2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court appears to have determined a punishment in consideration of the following: (a) the Defendant, after the instant accident occurred, clearly aware of the accident after the occurrence of the accident; (b) the Defendant had been punished twice due to drinking driving; (c) the instant accident appears to have occurred while driving in drinking condition; and (d) the victim wishes to punish the Defendant

When comprehensively taking into account various sentencing conditions, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, records of the crime, motive and circumstance after the crime, etc. as shown in the arguments of the court below and the party branch, the sentence imposed by the court below is not hot within the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.